2017/02/16

From Modernity to After-Modernity (34)

Book 3. Divination

1. the future emerges in a given context

1.1. The quasi-Worldview of Modernity

1.1.2. Power ideologies mold the minds

In “Book 2. Volume 1. About the formation of human knowledge. 1.1. The context. I defend the thesis that the nature of reality is largely inaccessible to humanity (1). I further wrote that “We
better recognize, early on, the fact that the whole universe is
immensely vast; so vast that its true nature is inaccessible to human
reason. … Inaccessibility implies the unknown and humans don't like
unknowns. They have no problems with unknown "unknowns" for the good
reason that unknown "unknowns" simply don't pop up in their
consciousness but they feel utterly ill at ease when faced with known
"unknowns" such as those nagging questions resulting from the
inaccessibility of the whole universe to the human mind. Such known
unknowns become obsessions that drive people in the throat of anxiety
from where they search to escape at all costs. This is how societal
groupings, along our entire history, have been seen coming in the
picture by proposing approximations of reality, and of what the unknown
is all about, to be shared by their citizens in order to sooth their
anxiety. When shared by all citizens such approximations crystallize in a
societal view of the world or a worldview that all consider as being
the truth of the matter and this rewards those societies with higher
levels of cohesion which, in turn, facilitate their reproduction from
generation to generation.”

While
the narratives of worldviews are often presented, as the only truth
about what reality is all about, the fact is that they are not really
the truth but merely human reflections or approximations of reality. In
”Book 2. Volume 1. About the formation of human knowledge. 1.1. The context” I wrote the following “Some
scientists may posit that science will one day come to the end of its
quest and will procure us the understanding of the truth about the
global reality in which we are such minuscule particles. But the fact
remains that the only possible materialist and rational understanding
that is available to particles of an ensemble is a vision from the
inside of that ensemble and we already know that such an internal vision
is limited to abstractions of the internal mechanisms within that
ensemble.n light of this we know that science has still a very long
way to go before it masters the internal mechanisms of the global
ensemble that contains us and there is no way of knowing for sure if
science will ever reach such a mastery. What is already a certainty is
that the scientific method is constrained within the internality of what
we call our universe. But what about the mind and consciousness of that
ensemble and its interactions with other ensembles? This is a matter
that is, as a logical proposition, inaccessible scientifically to the
particles inside the ensemble. That's where the limitations of science
are becoming crystal clear.Science originates from the self of each
observer placed in his societal, historical and geographical context.
All that each observer can possibly observe originates from within his
own self that is fashioned by his context. This means that this
observation is tainted by the limitations of the self. Some scientists
reject this idea as a matter of principle. But by doing so they
transform their limited observing “self” into their limitless observing
“ego”. The reality is that the ego and its pretensions of limitlessness
is nothing else than hubris that originates in the ideology of
individualism that was born with power societies and affirmed and
expanded by Modernity. And so the idea of scientific limitlessness is
merely an ideological illusion.”

In light of science’s
limitation within the internality of what we call our universe, and in
view of the further limitations of the self, we can affirm with
certainty that worldviews are ideations, or stories/narratives to make
sense of something that is inaccessible. We have seen earlier that
worldviews arose to answer the need to soothe the individuals’ anxiety
that is arising from facing the unknown. This individual necessity is
also neatly answering the need to increase the levels of societal
cohesion in order to perpetuate societies and ultimately the species. So
it is safe to say that the role of worldviews is to ensure the
individuals’ and the species’ well-being and in that sense they have to
be viewed as absolutely necessary societal components. They act as first
mover cohesion builders. Looked at from another angle it also appears
evident that societies can’t survive without the sharing by their
individual atoms of a common worldview.

History furthermore
teaches us that, when looked at from a worldview perspective, the
societal history of humanity divides roughly in 2 eras:

non-power tribal societies, whose worldviews were animism, thrived over the span of tens of thousands of years

power-societies,
whose worldviews initially were religions or philosophies, later gave
way to Modernity. Power societies stabilized at the earliest some 5,000
years ago and so on the scale of the long history they appear to be
still in their adolescence while for the observer of Late-Modernity they
already appear in their late stage of life just before death.

The
fact of the matter is that what distinguishes non-power animism from
power worldviews is the nature of the adherence of the citizens to the
worldview. Non-power tribal animism was willingly shared without any
exception by all while power worldviews were imposed by the men of power
to the reluctant members of their societies which routinely resulted in
the overthrow of the institutions of power. In this sense we come to
understand that tribal societies were fundamentally strong and resilient
while power societies are weak and fragile and their fragility
furthermore is seen increasing with their increasing levels of
complexity. What has to be retained here is that:

non-power
societies subscribe to a worldview through unanimous decision making,
and so no institutional action and no punishment for not adhering to the
worldview, are ever required

power societies subscribe to a
worldview through the molding of the citizens’ minds by the propaganda
of their center of power which means that institutions, and punishment
for non-obedience, are required to implement the sharing of a common
worldview by the citizenry.

Power worldviews, or
ideologies, initially were imposed primarily through brute force. But
the brute force exercised by the center of power was never a match for
rebellions of individual atoms at the periphery. This observation
explains why it took Milena for early kingdoms and empires to stabilize
and reproduce. The transition from tribal societies to empire has indeed
been a very long and messy process as I have extensively laid out in “About Early Kingdoms and Empires”, “Imperial stabilization” and more particularly in “Book 2, Volume 4. 4.7. About the institutions of governance”.

Only
after the men of power understood that brute force was ineffective at
perpetuating their reign did they eventually align with men of
knowledge, who consented to their power, in order to impose an
ideological story to glue the mind of all. Such narratives tricked their
citizens into acceptance of their rule. Propaganda originates indeed
with the alliance of power and knowledge. It is the manipulation of the
minds into believing that the ideation narrative, or the ideology
conceived of by the men of knowledge and imposed by the men of power, is
the sole truth out there about what reality is all about. Propaganda
acts along the following lines:

the minds are being
manipulated to believe that the narrative conveyed is the only truth out
there and instilling fear has always been the easiest route to
subjection under the pretext of the omnipotence of an all mighty god.
This has been an integral part of the axiom of dualism at the origin of
the civilizations that took their roots in the Tri-ContinentalArea. In
contrast the rare civilizations that succeeded to absorb animism were
more pragmatic and, as in China, they tended to recourse to reasoned
approaches of governance as Confucianism for example whose objective was
to ease the production of the citizens daily lives while keeping a
balanced society.

the minds that, for whatever reason,
are not sensitive to the propaganda are being threatened with harsh
punishments for not complying and so they most often feel forced to
convert to the narrative of the men of knowledge that is being imposed
by the men of power.

a harsh punishment was meted out to
those who refused to bow. The punishment, at best was the exclusion of
the group and, at worse was a death sentence. Not much has changed in
Late-Modernity. For sure propaganda has been greatly refined and the
arts have been requisitioned to act as instruments of popular
conversion. But while the punishment for not complying, appears more
benign, it is nevertheless very successful at breaking opposition. As
the word marginalization suggests those who do not comply are relegated
to the margins where their isolation from societal action induces a
feeling of disenfranchisement in their minds that increases their levels
of anxiety which lead them strait into depression. These are all
pathogenic factors that, according to the scientific literature,
increase the risk of death by as much as 46%(2). This should dispel once and for all the idea that modern propaganda has a benign impact on peoples’ physical lives.

The existence of a punishment, for not adhering to the ideology of the
men of power, furthermore implies that the sharing of such an ideology
is not an easy task. It also implies that other ideologies are
eventually competing with the ideology of the men of power to catch the
attention of the citizens. The threat of competing ideologies instills
fear in the minds of the men of power that they could possibly one day
lose their privileges. This is what motivates them to impose their
worldview to all with force as a last resort.

This conclusion
begs the question “how could free tribal people possibly have accepted
to leave behind the freedom procured by non-power societies for the
submission to power societies?”. How in the world could individuals
willingly have abandoned their freedom and shared belief in the
pragmatism of animism to convert to a state of subjection and obedience
to the ideologies of the men of power?

This is not something
that took place overnight from one day to the next. The transition from
non-power to power societies has indeed been a very long process that
started sometimes along the tortuous path of changing climates that
impacted very profoundly all life forms. At the end of the “younger
Dryas” average temperatures are seen to have increased by nearly 10
degrees Celcius in Central Greenland where the glaciers’ ice stored the
memory of past climates. Average temperatures were certainly not that
extreme everywhere on earth but were sufficient to somehow result in an
explosion of life all around the globe. A warming climate unleashed the
thriving of the flora and fauna. Human life got suddenly easier and
populations slowly started to increase. The following table illustrates
the sudden turn for the better at the end of the “Younger Dryas”. It
also shows that the following 10,000 years have had the improbable
chance of experiencing particularly stable temperatures and it finally
illustrates the radical departure from that stability which has set in
very recently...

Scientists
who specialize in the study of human “pre-history” have for a very long
time believed that power resulted as a consequence of a causal chain
starting with –the agricultural revolution that would have impulsed – a
demographic growth which destabilized tribal societies and called for –
new structures of governance. It is certainly a fact that demographic
statistics show a progressive increase in population over the next
Milena following the agricultural revolution but this in no way proves
that power resulted as a direct consequence from the agricultural
revolution.

New discoveries in Anatolia's Gőbekli Tepe
disprove indeed such a thesis where archaeologists unearthed a sanctuary
site that was built prior to agriculture (3).
Gőbekli tepe is, as of today, the oldest known man made structure. This
sanctuary was built some 13,000-11,000 years ago, and perhaps even
earlier, by hunter-gatherers before agriculture emerged. It covers an
area roughly 90,000 square meters. Such a monumental construction could
not have been realized without the organization of a large labor force
which suggests that the members of multiple tribes must have
collaborated over an extended period of time.

What directly
springs to mind here is that some form of tribal organization based on
the exercise of power must have existed to oversee the activities of
“workers” from multiple tribes in order to possibly organize the kind of
large workforce that would have been necessary to complete such
gigantic works over extensive periods of time. But this idea contradicts
the traditional scientific view that power emerged as a necessity to
organize the larger groupings that resulted from the demographic growth
caused by agriculture. So what are we to make of this situation?

To make sense of this contradiction let’s go back to “Book 2. Volume 4. Governance and societal evolution. 4.7. About the institutions of governance”
where I develop a non-agricultural model of societal transition from
non-power tribes to empires. In substance what I show is that tribes
have always had their own mechanisms to cope with destabilizing
demographic realities. This conclusion was reached from studies, about
the dynamics of contemporary small groups, that indicate their
spontaneous adaptation to size variations. In summary, while trying to
maximize the efficiency of the group in the tasks involved in its
“raison d’être”, its participants unconsciously limit its size (4)
to an average of 150 also known as the “Dunbar Number”. This average
means that there is an upper limit at 180-200 participants due to
factors relating to the building of the necessary trust between the
participants and a lower limit at 100-120 participants due to factors
that relate to the work efficacy of the group in producing the goods
necessary for the survival of its members.

When reaching its
upper limit the group splits and when reaching its lower limit the group
tries to grow by uniting with individuals of other groups. This
spontaneous demographic balancing of the size of tribal groups has also
to be related to the general context in which the societal transition
from tribes to empire takes place:

a warming climate, at the end of the “Younger Dryas” (5) attracted the fauna to the alluvial plains where the flora grew exuberant

humans followed the fauna and literally landed in alluvial plains where they adapted to their new context of abundance

Estimates of tribal population densities, before the agricultural
revolution set in, vary wildly from 0,004 per Sq. km. to 1 per Sq. Km (6).
For the sake of visualizing how tribal distribution operated in real
life let’s imagine that in the alluvial plains of the Upper Paleolithic
densities were in the range of 0.1 per Sq Km. This would imply that on
average the territory of one tribe would thus have totaled some 1,500 Sq
Km. This figure is an approximation based on Martin Wobst’s model and
does not pretend to accurately reflect the demographic reality on the
ground in the upper-paleolithic. This approximation is solely meant to
allow us to gain a visualization of the process by which tribal
societies absorbed population growth. What immediately springs to mind
is that the real size of the alluvial plains necessarily limited the
total number of tribal groups.

At a population density of 0.1
per Sq Km the 15,000 Sq Km of the alluvial plains in Mesopotamia along
the Tigris and Euphrates would have been completed occupied by merely 10
tribes… What this implies is that when the population of Mesopotamia
started to growth the tribal mode of governance was very fast
destabilized with a near immediate need for power institutions in order
to manage the growing population.

In this particular context
agriculture procured an answer accommodating a rising population with a
limited territory. Such a technological answer not only satisfied
population growth in a limited territory it also procured power
institutions with the rationale to feed a continually growing population
while also appearing to feed the growth in power of these same power
institutions. In contrast, disposing of 1,5 to 2 million Sq Km of
alluvial plains China would have had the potential to accommodate a
total of 1000 to 1300 different tribes… which suggests that, within the
territory of present-day China, the tribal model of governance could
have absorbed a growing population over many Milena following the
initial emergence of power in the Middle-East.

In conclusion,
whatever was the real figure of tribal density, the fact is that the
smaller the size of the alluvial plains the more rapidly the process of
expansion by way of splitting tribes reached its absolute limit. In the
smaller alluvial plains the pressure of demographic growth led
necessarily to an early occupation of the entire territory and so arose
the early necessity of newer forms of governance based on power.

Herein
lays the best explanation, we have to this day, for the differentiation
between the diverging societal paths taken in the TriContinentalArea
(Middle-East) and in China. This also explains the mechanisms by which
power could easily have predated agriculture in the site of Gőbekli
Tepe. Practically the following lessons follow these conclusions:

in
the TriContinentalArea (fertile crescent) the population growth,
through the mechanism of splitting tribes, must very rapidly have
overwhelmed the relatively small sizes of its alluvial plains. And once
the entire territory of an alluvial plain was occupied by tribes the
only way to handle further population growth was by recoursing to new
methods of food production that relied on the occupation of smaller
portions of the territory than what tribes traditionally used to need.
In other words, from very early on, the limited size of the alluvial
plains in the Fertile Crescent imposed the necessity of a smaller
territorial footprint... which was encouraged with the emergence of new
forms of governance based on power that were at once, – better adapted
to managing the organization of ever larger societies, – highly motivate
to push agriculture as a means to increase their own level of power
through centralization of the food reserves. This explains how, in the
Fertile Crescent, the transition from tribal non-power societies to
power societies started very soon after the climate stabilized some
12-10,000 years ago. This mechanism has also to be set in the context of
a very narrow territory that was at the intersection of 3 colossal land
masses which suggest traffic from the one to the other which, in turn,
suggests conflicts and ideological ruptures... which explains why
animism was abandoned very early on to be replaced by newer narratives.

In
the territory of present-day China the immense size of the alluvial
plains acted like a shock absorber on population growth and tribal
societies could thus absorb population growth, by splitting and
expanding their territorial occupation, over far longer periods of time.
And so we begin to understand why in China the transition from tribes
to empire started very late indeed. In comparison to the Fertile
Crescent, where power emerged very rapidly after the completion of the
“Younger Dryas” sometimes 11,600 years ago, in the territory of
present-day China power only emerged some 5-4,000 years ago. In other
words, in the territory of present day China, the tribal worldview of
animism could be perpetuated in continuity because, – the sheer vastness
of its alluvial plains allowed the tribal model to absorb demographic
growth over Milena. Furthermore tribal animism was not challenged by a
competitor worldview from the outside and for this very reason it could
perpetuate in continuity. This explains how it was eventually adopted by
the empire...

What is particularly interesting at this
juncture is to observe that a tribal mechanism was at play that created
the conditions for power to emerge well before the agricultural
revolution was starting to set in. I analyze this mechanism in “Book 2.
Volume 4. Governance and societal evolution. 4.7. About the institutions of governance” (7).
In short during their retreats in the “underworld” far from their
fellow-tribesmen the men of knowledge of neighboring tribes were not
only pursuing the transmission of their knowledge to their apprentices
they were also trying to increase their own knowledge through rituals
mastered by the twins among them. Twin wo(men) of knowledge were kind of
master wo(men) of knowledge and the respect shown by all for them acted
as a powerful symbol of the knowledge unification of all present at the
retreat.

As symbol of the unity, of the knowledge of the
participants at the retreat, the daily ways of doing and thinking of the
tribes of the twin wo(men) of knowledge (culture) gradually unified the
populations of multiple tribes over an expanding territory. This stage
of development consecrated the expansion of one tribe’s culture over an
expanding territory made of multiple tribes. In the TransContinentalArea
this cultural unification was completed very early on for the good
reason that the wo(men) of knowledge of all the tribes occupying the
alluvial plains participated in the initial retreats. In China multiple
centers of cultural unification appear simultaneously that eventually
merged over the following Milena.

This tribal cultural
unification was symbolized by the persons of “twin wo(men) of
knowledge”. This was not an exercise of power but a spontaneous rallying
around twins who were perceived to be mastering a superior knowledge.
This whole process of unification was thus based on the utilitarian
notion that the twins’ superior knowledge would be helping to minimize
the suffering while maximizing the pleasure of all tribesmen. This
unification around the symbol of the twins helps us to understand how
pre-agricultural and pre-power societies were eventually able to erect
very large construction works at Gőbekli Tepe and in all probability in
many other places that are still hidden from archaeological sight.

Cultural
unification around a human symbol representing superior knowledge was
also differentiating the “twin wo(men) of knowledge” from the other
“wo(men) of knowledge” and more certainly from the their tribesmen.
Psychology explains how differentiation practiced over very long
time-spans leads necessarily to a deepening differentiation and the
establishment of power with its privileges and the need to control the
population in order to perpetuate the institutions ensuring the
privileges of the few men of power.

But power on its own was
never sufficient to perpetuate institutions over the generations.
Propaganda is what ensured the stabilization and perpetuation of power
societies and allowed for the emergence of empire. Only after the empire
succeeded to overwhelm the minds of its citizens with its ideology
could its institutions reproduce and perpetuate over the generations. In
the end the ideologies devised by the men of knowledge and the
propaganda imposed by the men of power on peoples’ minds is what broke
the spell of the ever occurring cycle of emergence/collapse of power
institutions that plagued the whole transition from tribes to empire.

Later
with the adoption of the 4 core traits of Modernity the minds succumbed
ever further... this time to the reason at work within capital and
later to rationalism. In practical terms this means that power imposes
on humanity to obey the diktats of its ideologies in all aspects of
societal and individual life.

Under the rule of empire
obedience was still limited to the obligation to accept the
differentiation between the rulers and the ruled which attributed the
privilege of taxation to the rulers living in Early Cities. In
comparison Modernity largely expanded the reach of its control of the
minds. The wildest move came with urbanization when self sufficient
farmers were made to believe that their lives would improve considerably
by abandoning their self-sufficiency to serve as slaves in factories.
Their loss of autonomy was painted as a huge progress that confers the
benefit of consumerism. Add to that a coat of consumer bling and you
begin to understand how the minds were anesthetized to their ensuing
state of dependence. The idea that to pay for these goods, one has to
sell his body and mind, was indeed astutely camouflaged under shining
bling. Amazingly humans have the same weakness as crows for everything
that shines.

Under Modernity this weakness has been used, and
continues to be used, as a bait to pull people into consumerism and
submission. But more generally we observe that this whole process of
imposing ideologies though propaganda takes multiple forms that directly
impact on peoples’ daily lives.
_____________

2. See “Loneliness actually hurts us on a cellular level”in Vox by Brian Resnick. 2017-01-30. “Loneliness is associated with higher blood pressure and heart disease — it literally breaks our hearts. A 2015 meta-review of 70 studies showed that loneliness increases the risk of your chance of dying by 26 percent.(Comparethat to depression and anxiety, which is associated with a comparable 21 percent increase in mortality.)”

4. It is generally agreed that 150 individuals is the average small human groups naturally tend to attain. This is known as the “Dunbar Number”. Robin Dunbar is Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Oxford University.

5. The “Younger Dryas”
is the last glaciation period that spanned between c. 12,980 to c.
11,600 years ago when world average temperatures were nearly 10 degrees
Celsius lower than the temperatures at the dawn of the industrial
revolution.

6. Tribal population densities: “wobst's population model” gives an
estimate of 0.004 to 0.008 per Sq Km at the early stages of long
distance migration that reached densities of 0,02 per Sq Km some 30,000
years ago. Wobst also indicates that archeology gives higher densities
in the alluvial plains of the upper paleolithic. See “Boundaries of paleo social systems” by Martin Wobst (free pdf).